Ǧviḷás and Snəwayəɬ: Indigenous Laws, Economies, and Relationships with Place Speaking to State Extractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A discussion about Indigenous economies, governance, and laws begins with relationships. These relationships are centered in a place, a traditional territory, and include responsibilities towards that place. Such a relational approach to Indigenous economies is in conflict with capitalist modes of extraction and the settler Canadian court’s narrow conception of the duties of “consultation and accommodation” as the state’s primary responsibility when an activity or project will infringe Aboriginal rights in a traditional territory. The purpose of this article is to explore the conflict between Indigenous economies and state-sponsored extraction drawing on the experience of two Indigenous nations in British Columbia, Canada—the Heiltsuk and Tsleil-Waututh Nations—who are upholding their relationship with their traditional territories through the assertion of jurisdiction. The Heiltsuk continue to challenge the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ permitting commercial herring fisheries, and have dealt with a marine diesel spill using their own legal processes. The Tsleil-Waututh are opposing the construction of another fossil fuel pipeline in their territory that would increase tanker traffic in the habitat of endangered orcas by seven hundred percent by conducting their own assessment of the project based on Coast Salish law. These exercises of jurisdiction demonstrate relations with and responsibilities towards these Nations’ traditional territories that underscore ecosystem health and wellbeing as the foundation of Indigenous economies. While these examples effectively demonstrate the Nations’ responsibility towards their territories, the regimes of state-sponsored extractions require radical reformulation to be able to engage relational processes of consent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".